@Renamed83048
Unless it’s an AMX-13 automatic reloading system, Gaijin makes reloading slightly slower than maximum reload rate for all vehicles in WT to account for something, most likely gunnery time. Though breathing room for if they need to buff a reload is another potential avenue.
I gotta say, it seems Gaijin just don’t bother to pay any attention to naval battle. I was shocked when I noticed that a dozen of different battleships share the exact same reloading speed of 2 per minute.
Finally, while the developers have been presented the document on multiple previous occasions, the 1924-25 Short Range Battle Practice(https://catalog.archives.gov/id/112581847?objectPage=160) provides good reference for exactly what rates of fire must have been exceeded in 1935-36 for that exercise to “exceed all past performance”. Maximum average rate of fire achieved by a ship of each battleship class with guns 14" or larger in that exercise are as follows:
New York Class: 2.01(USS New York)
Nevada Class: 2.18(USS Oklahoma)
Pennsylvania Class: 2.51(USS Pennsylvania)
New Mexico Class: 2.09(USS New Mexico)
Tennessee Class: 2.20(USS Tennessee)
Colorado Class(Not in game): 1.98(USS Maryland)
Quote from the issue.
Feel free to claim that the 1924-25 Short Range Battle Practice is wrong, AlvisWisla. Pretty sure you know these ships more than US Navy do.
Why should I prove it wrong? You really confused me.
In case you have not noticed. Morvran claimed that irl Queen Elizabeth class had 2.4 per minute reloadibg speed and in game it’s 2 per minute. However, for Pennsylvania class in 1924-25 it’s 2.51 per minute, with the 1935-36 test exceeding this reloading speed. And yet it’s 1.5 in game. I don’t see anything that could support you.
1 Like
Somehow just start to wonder what was Amagi class and Nagato class’s reload irl, now that they are given 24 second reloads as 1920s version in game…
My statements were 3 parts:
1- Reloading is not purely based on balance. A fact backed up by every Gaijin statement.
If it was purely based on balance, AMX-13 would have a reload speed longer than 6 seconds, and Leclerc would’ve never gotten a 6 or 5 second reload speed and would’ve instead been ~0.5 seconds longer similar to how T-80Us are treated.
2- Reloads are slower on average to real-life vehicles.
3- There are bug reports for every vehicle in the game, and if and when Gaijin deems it they will act.
I apologize if my posts confused you, it wasn’t my intention for them to do so.
That confused me more. According to the test, the Americans had their 16 inch twin cannon turret with 1.98 ROF in the 1924-25 test(Colorado class) , while the 14 inch triple cannon turret on Pennsylvania class had 2.51 ROF(1.5 maxium in game).
And yet, the 16 inch twin cannon turret of IJN in game has 2.5 ROF on Nagato class in 1922. If it’s slower than real-life, than IJN should have 16 inch cannon with ROF probably more than 3!
I do have heard about stories of Colorado class born with design flaws, but this still seems a bit outrageous. It’s 16 inch cannon with ROF more than 3 in the year 1922 that we are talking about, not some 11 inch toys built in 1930s.
I do have to admit that I am not really a fan of Battleships, which is why I haven’t really read many books or files about them. I hope Morvran got historical files on the ROF of Nagato class (I’d simply forget about Amagi class. Its construction was halted).
Tell that to the myriad of triple barrel guns we have in game outperforming USN 2 barrel or equivalent triple barrel guns.
EG the Russian 180mm is using the single barrel test stand rate of fire, it is fully impossible for that gun to reach that rate of fire in it’s as mounted setup, gaijin states they will not change it for balance reasons.
IJN 203mm guns cannot cycle in the time need to reach 5 RPM, instead they are firing at the rate at which their elevators supply the guns, once again, selected per gaijin for “balance”.
Or lets go with Amagi’s 410s firing at their test stand rate as well.
And on and on and on, its all fully selective on gaijin’s part.
USN 14 inch guns are firing at their minimal as designed achievable ROF, same with USN early 203mm guns and late 203mm guns, no other nation uses the as designed minimum achievable ROF for their weapons.
1 Like
btw, do you have test results of IJN 14 inch guns? Fuso class and Kongo class, twin cannon turret. They have 2 ROF in game. I wonder what they are like irl. Are they really faster than Nevada class, New Mexico class and Pennsylvania class?
Yeah, it naval is in need of some major tlc
In turret no, but if I recall the max attained on a test stand was 2.5 and is what I have seen a lot of IJN documentation claim is the maximum theoretical rate of fire. I don’t have any data of the guns ever approaching or achieving said stated theoretical rate of fire in their actual mounts, like a majority of the IJN’s guns.
Such is very commonly the case from what I’ve found too, the IJN seemingly destroyed or just never kept many, if any of their actual mounted gunnery tests or achieved ROFs for trainings or engagements, with a myriad of sources on the guns themselves citing pre-war development findings (for Japanese sources) or the scraps that the US technical mission to Japan collected which are of mainly experimental / guessed values, with a number of TM values either contradicting actual tested weapon results from captured equipment in the US, or contradicting Japanese sources.
Similar documentation from the IJN also states that the 460s of the Yamatos could reach a rate of fire of 3 RPM, which is physically impossible if the guns are in their own turret as it takes a full 11 seconds for the guns to normally depress to their loading angle, meaning, in the time it takes the gun to depress and return to it’s firing elevation alone, the gun has already failed to reach 3 RPM, meaning this ROF is obviously a test stand rate of fire, yet, it is commonly cited as the actual ROF.
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Provably wrong as below.
Obviously Gaijin disagrees with you - this is a statement from a Technical moderator:
1 Like
That post you cited fully agrees with the statements I made.
“They aren’t purely based on documentation.” Which also means “They aren’t purely based on balanced.” as well.
After all, if they were purely based on balanced he’d say “They aren’t based on documentation.” leaving out the word “purely”.
Basic language class knowledge.
I suspect it might be because Navweaps lists early US guns as having around a 1.5rpm, 1.75rpm on the high end. However these equate to figures achieved in combat, while other nations tend to be allowed their trial figures. American trial figures were similarly high, ships approaching or exceeding 2.5rpm in SRBP are not unheard of and from primary sources this improved throughout the 30s, with a secondary source claiming ships had to be limited to that 2.5rpm figure for safety. To the best of my knowledge no battleship with guns 14” or larger ever achieved a sustained 2rpm in combat. The best I have seen personally is a 1.7rpm sustained over part of an engagement by a KGV, I forget which. More often than not battleships with guns of any size would fail to maintain even a 1rpm in combat for a variety of reasons. Those high numbers in excess of 1.5rpm were generally only achieved by ships with cutting edge fire control and often only at fairly close range. West Virginia maintaining a ~41sec salvo interval at ~20k yards was actually much better than most battleships ever managed, not worse as the game would have you believe. More impressive than what Washington managed at Guadalcanal even. I made the accepted but not implemented report on the 14” guns and will do the same for the 16” if the Colorados come with the same reload. Hopefully if this gains enough traction something will be done about it.
1 Like
Presuming a conclusion you want that isn’t actually supported by the words at all - there is nothing in that post that says historical times are used for anything at all - you are guilting of the logical fallacy Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia
4 Likes
For the large part, US standards were gimped because of a quite frankly silly misunderstanding from the developers. They confused the spare rounds the Standards keep in their turrets for a ready rack, which was single handedly denying any hope of fixing US BBs reload time. The thinking was that since the USN removed them in the 1930s refit they cant shoot as fast as they were reported.
Then a forum poster here asked around in the Texas museum and they were very confused on what Gaijins means by ‘ready rack’. Those were merely spare ammunition and had no special part on the loading process. Additionally, it was found in the records for Arizonas battle damage that she still had those spare rounds in her turret, utterly invalidating the primary reason that Gaijin uses to deny a faster RoF.
Finally, Tallguy found a 1930s report about all the US battleships in short range practice. It directly reports that standards were shooting vastly above the 1.5 RPM that Gaijin insists. Theoretically, we’ve basically annihlated any and all reasons for Standards to be stuck with a 40 second reload, the problem is entirely Gaijin at this point.
6 Likes
This is evolving into a he said/she said conversion. Should US Battleships get a reload buff, yes or no?
1 Like